When political loyalty mattered
By MARK SHIELDS
After having worked in or reported on the last 12 U.S. presidential elections, I am convinced that successful politicians who regularly run for and win public office possess an extra olfactory nerve that enables them to sniff changing political winds, often long before the rest of us have even noticed the leaves stirring.
The late Strom Thurmond was very good at his business, which was winning statewide elections in his native South Carolina. As a combat veteran of D-Day, he returned home and led a 1946 primary field of 11 Democratic candidates for governor before winning the runoff. He charged that his surviving opponent was not a strong enough supporter of President Franklin Roosevelt.
In 1948, after the 37-year-old Minneapolis Mayor Hubert Humphrey had galvanized the national Democratic Party at its Philadelphia convention with a historic summons “to get out of the shadow of states’ rights and to walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of civil rights,” Thurmond bolted the national party and ran for president on the states’ rights ticket, winning Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina.
In 1950, Thurmond lost the Democratic Senate primary to incumbent Sen. Olin Johnston, but in 1954, he made history by becoming the first man in the U.S. whose name was not printed on the ballot to win a Senate seat by write-in votes over a nominee. (In 2010, Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, as a write-in candidate against the Democratic and GOP nominees, was able to keep her Alaska seat.)
Having won the Senate seat as an Independent and Democrat, Thurmond, broke again from the Democrats over federal civil rights laws and endorsed Republican Barry Goldwater, who carried only six states (South Carolina being one of them) against Democratic president Lyndon B. Johnson. Thurmond switched parties himself and beginning in 1966, won six more six-year Senate terms as a Republican.
But what about this extra olfactory nerve in winning politicians we spoke of earlier? In 1976, as the U.S. was about to elect Jimmy Carter, its first Southern president in the post-civil rights era, former President Gerald Ford nominated, and the Senate confirmed, the first black federal judge from Dixie, Matthew Perry, who had been a civil rights lawyer in South Carolina. After serving on the U.S. Court of Military Appeals, Perry was later nominated to the U.S. District Court for the district of South Carolina, where he served with distinction. Today in Columbia, S. C., judges and juries hear cases and seek justice in the Matthew J. Perry Federal Courthouse.
It should be noted that Perry’s nomination to become the first African-American U.S. federal judge from the Old Confederacy was sponsored and supported by Thurmond, who also was the first Southern senator to hire a black professional on his Senate staff. Thurmond was no plaster saint. He was, I believe, wrong more often than he was right. But he did in fact change.
A word about political loyalty: In 1980, Thurmond backed former Texas Gov. John Connally to run against Ronald Reagan for the presidency. Connally had not won a single primary by the time South Carolina’s took place in March, and had the strong smell of loser about him. Reagan was sailing to the nomination.
But Thurmond had endorsed Connally and meant it. I followed him the last week of that primary campaign as he introduced Connally as the “only president tough enough to deal with the Soviets and tough enough to deal with the Congress,” telling me Connally “is the best presidential candidate in my lifetime.” The message was unmistakable: If Thurmond is with you, he sticks. He won’t cut and run if and when things go bad. And if Thurmond is against you, you’re in for a fight. Loyalty is more than an applause line in a Fourth of July speech. Not a whole lot of that around these days.
To find out more about Mark Shields and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.
Rules for posting comments
Comments posted below are from readers. In no way do they represent the view of Oahu Publishing Inc. or this newspaper. This is a public forum.
Comments may be monitored for inappropriate content but the newspaper is under no obligation to do so. Comment posters are solely responsible under the Communications Decency Act for comments posted on this Web site. Oahu Publishing Inc. is not liable for messages from third parties.
IP and email addresses of persons who post are not treated as confidential records and will be disclosed in response to valid legal process.
Do not post:
- Potentially libelous statements or damaging innuendo.
- Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
- Copyrighted materials of any sort without the express permission of the copyright holder.
- Personal attacks, insults or threats.
- The use of another person's real name to disguise your identity.
- Comments unrelated to the story.
If you believe that a commenter has not followed these guidelines, please click the FLAG icon below the comment.